Web 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 / Mona Jozi
Definitions: Web 1.0, Web. 2.0, Web 3.0 "What do people mean when they talk about the Web 2.0?" is a query we receive repeatedly, and probably has as many answers as the number of people out there using the term. However, since talk about the Web 3.0 has surfaced in the last year or so, a whole new level of confusion seems to have set in. In an effort to help people understand the ideas behind buzzwords like Web 2.0 and Web 3.0, let's go through what exactly these terms mean (if anything), and how they apply to your ecommerce business. A broad definition I want to make it clear at the start that this article is meant to be a broad definition of the challenges that cause people to think in terms of Web 2.0 and Web 3.0. Since these are buzzwords and not clearly defined terms, think of this as an attempt to provide a bird's-eye view of the ever-changing lay of the land on the web. In an effort to create discreet "versions" of the web that can be compared, I will borrow from the W3C Director Tim Berners-Lee's notion of the read-write web, which is often used as a way of explaining what Web 2.0 means. The first implementation of the web represents the Web 1.0, which, according to Berners-Lee, could be considered the "read-only web." In other words, the early web allowed us to search for information and read it. There was very little in the way of user interaction or content contribution. However, this is exactly what most website owners wanted: Their goal for a website was to establish an online presence and make their information available to anyone at any time. I like to call this "brick-and-mortar thinking applied to the web," and the web as a whole hasn't moved much beyond this stage yet. Shopping carts are Web 1.0 Shopping cart applications, which most ecommerce website owners employ in some shape or form, basically fall under the category of Web 1.0. The overall goal is to present products to potential customers, much as a catalog or a brochure does — only, with a website, you can also provide a method for anyone in the world to purchase products. The web provided a vector for exposure, and removed the geographical restrictions associated with a brick-and-mortar business. Currently, we are seeing the infancy of the Web 2.0, or the "read-write" web if we stick to Berners-Lee's method of describing it. The newly-introduced ability to contribute content and interact with other web users has dramatically changed the landscape of the web in a short time. It has even more potential that we have yet to see. For example, just look at YouTube and MySpace, which rely on user submissions, and the potential becomes more clear. The Web 2.0 appears to be a welcome response to a demand by web users that they be more involved in what information is available to them. Many views of Web 2.0 Now, it's important to realize that there are a staggering number of definitions of what constitutes a "Web 2.0 application." For example, the perception exists that just because a website is built using a certain technology (like Ruby on Rails), or because it employs Ajax in its interface, it is a Web 2.0 application. From the general, bird's-eye view we are taking, this is not the case; our definition simply requires that users be able to interact with one another or contribute content. Developers, for example, have a much more rigid definition of Web 2.0 than average web users, and this can lead to confusion. This in turn leads us to the rumblings and mumblings we have begun to hear about Web 3.0, which seems to provide us with a guarantee that vague web-versioning nomenclature is here to stay. By extending Tim Berners-Lee's explanations, the Web 3.0 would be something akin to a "read-write-execute" web. However, this is difficult to envision in its abstract form, so let's take a look at two things I predict will form the basis of the Web 3.0 — semantic markup and web services. Semantic markup refers to the communication gap between human web users and computerized applications. One of the largest organizational challenges of presenting information on the web is that web applications aren't able to provide context to data, and, therefore, can't really understand what is relevant and what is not. Through the use of some sort of semantic markup, or data interchange formats, data could be put in a form not only accessible to humans via natural language, but able to be understood and interpreted by software applications as well. While it is still evolving, this notion — formatting data to be understood by software agents — leads to the "execute" portion of our definition, and provides a way to discuss web services. Web 3.0 A web service is a software system designed to support computer-to-computer interaction over the Internet. Web services are not new and usually take the form of an Application Programming Interface (API). The popular photography-sharing website Flickr provides a web service whereby developers can programmatically interface with Flickr to search for images. Currently, thousands of web services are available. However, in the context of Web 3.0, they take center stage. By combining a semantic markup and web services, the Web 3.0 promises the potential for applications that can speak to each other directly, and for broader searches for information through simpler interfaces. What's important to understand, I think, is that the nomenclature with which we describe these differing philosophies should not be taken too seriously. Just because a website does not employ Web 2.0 features does not make it obsolete. After all, a small ecommerce website trying to sell niche products may not have any business need for users to submit content or to be able to interact with each other. Most importantly, you don't need to upgrade anything, get new software or anything like that. These are abstract ideas used to contemplate the challenges developers face on the web in addition to theories about how to address them. Difference Between Web 1.0, Web 2.0, & Web 3.0 - With Examples Like any other technology, the web is evolving and it is evolving rather quickly. Due to lack of standards, there seems to be a little bewilderment regarding its evolution and versions but the most acceptable stages of evolution are as follows: *Web 1.0 *Web 2.0 *Web 3.0 (Also known as Semantic Web) So, what is the difference between these versions? Web 1.0: The Internet before 1999, experts call it Read-Only era. The average internet user's role was limited only to reading the information presented to him. The best examples are millions of static websites which mushroomed during the.com boom. There was no active communication or information flow from consumer of the information to producer of the information. Web 2.0: The lack of active interaction of common user with the web lead to the birth of Web 2.0. The year 1999 marked the beginning of a Read-Write-Publish era with notable contributions from LiveJournal (Launched in April, 1999) and Blogger (Launched in August, 1999). Now even a non-technical user can actively interact & contribute to the web using different blog platforms. This era empowered the common user with a few new concepts viz. Blog, Social-Media & Video-Streaming. Publishing your content is only a few clicks away! Few remarkable developments of Web 2.0 are Twitter, YouTube, eZineArticles, Flickr and Facebook. Web 3.0: It seems we have everything whatever we had wished for in Web 2.0, but it is way behind when it comes to intelligence. Perhaps a six year old child has a better analytical abilities than the existing search technologies! Keyword based search of web 2.0 resulted in an information overload. The following attributes are going to be a part of Web 3.0: *contextual Search *Tailor made Search *Personalized Search *Evolution of 3D Web *Deductive Reasoning Though Web is yet to see something which can be termed as fairly intelligent but the efforts to achieve this goal has already began. 2 weeks back the Official Google Blog mentioned about how Google search algorithm is now getting intelligent as it can identify many synonyms. For example Pictures & Photos are now treated as similar in meaning. From now onwards your search query GM crop will not lead you to GM (General Motors) website. Why? Cause, first by synonym identification Google will understand that GM may mean General Motors or Genetically Modified. Then by context i.e. by the keyword crop it will deduce that the user wants information on genetically modified crops and not on General Motors. Similarly, GM car will not lead you to genetically modified crop. Try out yourself to check how this newly added artificial intelligence works in Google. Also, there are many websites built on Web 3.0 which personalizes your search. The web is indeed getting intelligent.